Which Women Support Hillary (and Which Women Can’t Afford To)

A story of two voting blocs.

February 17, 2016

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

I’m going to posit something radical: The most vocal support for Hillary Clinton comes from women in the commentariat, very much like myself, who have had to fight sexism to succeed in public-facing, white-collar professions and relate to Hillary’s struggle to do the same. Many of these women have also engaged in other struggles that are the opposite of Hillary’s—women like Sady Doyle, Amanda Marcotte, and my own colleague Katha Pollitt are foes of Wall Street and imperial misadventure, while Hillary has often been a friend to the wealthy, and a hawk. A quote from Lena Dunham, stumping for Hillary in Iowa, captures the sentiment well: “As a newly grown-up woman who has experienced my fair share of backlash, public shaming and of puritanical judgements, that [Hillary’s resistance to sexist attacks] really moves me.” And it’s not just true for someone thrust into fame as quickly as Dunham. Every well-known feminist is subjected to the same language on Twitter that is directed toward Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail: bitch, harpy, dumb, ugly, and so on. As Doyle writes, “Her story moves me…simply as an example of a woman who got every misogynist trick in the world thrown at her, and who didn’t let it slow her down. On that level, she’s actually become a bit of a personal role model.” To quote another Clinton, we feel her pain.

There is a part of our own pain that we hope Hillary Clinton will fix. Marcotte, no stranger to misogynist trolls of all stripes, writes that “yes, having a woman president does matter, if only to spend election night watching the spreading urine stains on the pants of the men who spent months lecturing feminists.” Erica Brazelton wrote in these pages in June 2013 that “seeing said bodies in spaces not originally reserved for them matters.” Or to quote Sady Doyle, “When people yell at me, or dislike me, I no longer think oh, how horrible this is for me. I now think, well, if Hillary can do it. Seriously. If Hillary Clinton can be called an evil hag by major media outlets for most of her adult life and run for president, I can deal with blocking ten or twenty guys on Twitter.” Some of those guys are Sanders supporters; much digital ink has been spilled over the presence of “Bernie bros,” or dudes whose support for their candidate is expressed by being assholes to Hillary supporters. In other words, Hillary Clinton’s professional success represents one step closer to a meritocracy, where every little girl (and boy) knows that a woman can be president, and that this might trickle down to all of our workplaces, allowing each professional young woman to be taken a bit more seriously. To quote Kanye West’s timeless words, her presence itself is a gift—what she does is of secondary importance.

It's not very easy to measure the power of example. But let’s try.

This is a really interesting argument, because it is not, of course, very easy to measure the power of example. But let’s try. Some countries have tried to create policy around female representation. For example, lawmakers in Norway noticed that women were vastly underrepresented on corporate boards. So, in 2003, they passed a requirement that 40 percent of every LLC board be female. Eleven years later, a study has found that “no evidence of significant differential improvements for women in the post-reform cohort, either in terms of average earnings or likelihood of filling in a top position in a Norwegian business.” Women still, by and large, take time off to raise children and suffer from sexism in promotions. There has, however, been another Nordic model that’s worked quite well. In 1995, Sweden put in place a policy that not only offered generous parental leave, but motivated both men and women to take it by offering some months of parental leave that would be lost if men didn’t take advantage of them. This counteracted the effects of entrenched sexism (women would stay home and fall behind, while men did not). Today, things aren’t perfect, but women take 75 percent of parental leave, as opposed to 99.5 percent in 1974, and Sweden has ranked in the top four countries for gender equality since the World Economic Forum introduced their gender gap rankings in 2006. In other words, bright examples are a pretty inefficient way to create change, while interventions in the workplace and the distribution of wealth works pretty well.

2

3

4

5

To take another example, Sheryl Sandberg, the author of Lean In, has become an model for white-collar women everywhere; I have been critical of her book, but in reading it found plenty of advice that applies to my white-collar workplace and that I could plausibly take as advice. Her example and encouragement are no doubt a great boon for women committed to working in competitive Silicon Valley startups. At the same time, Sandberg’s example only goes so far—it doesn’t do much good to tell a housekeeper to “lean in”—she’d just be doing more work for her boss, with no gain for her, buying into a system emotionally that exploits her physically. And in fact, when Sheryl Sandberg visited Harvard, in part to celebrate women in business, she was petitioned by housekeepers at a Harvard-owned hotel who hoped that she would “lean in” with them as part of their campaign for a union and better working conditions. She declined. They ultimately gained a union anyway and have seen work abuses drop and income increase.

All of this is to say something pretty self-evident if you think about it—example and representation is probably pretty important within a class—it’s hard to prove, but our gut tells us that role models matter. The mere existence of female leaders can inspire confidence in others who have opportunities and just need that extra strength to seize them. What representation is pretty bad at doing is affecting who gets those opportunities—if you’re poor, no positive example is gonna just boost you out of it. That’s an old right-wing myth—if you can look up at your superiors, you can tug your bootstraps in their direction.

Others have catalogued Hillary Clinton’s opposition to policies that would redistribute wealth and power toward women a la the Nordic model, so I’ll keep that brief here. Suffice to say that she has spoken about women caring for their children on welfare with venom and has made herself an enemy of the poor. She is surely not the most egregious opponent of women’s well-being—she is, after all, pro-choice—but her allies, practically speaking, are big donors like Goldman Sachs and Walmart, which lobby hard against redistribution and good treatment of women in the workplace. Voting for Hillary is, unfortunately, a strike against poor people.

So, to support Hillary Clinton is to support a genuinely good example for white-collar women’s behavior when trying to beat sexism at work at the expense of policies that might help the majority of women. Or is that a false dichotomy?

Some believe that the presence of Bernie Sanders in the race has offered an alternative—his policies redistribute more, and he is a self-professed feminist, but…he is a man. No inspiring grit-in-the-face-of-sexism to be had in this old white dude. He is, however, a socialist and, if you haven’t figured it out already, I think socialism is women’s best hope because it accounts for the policies that will get them the stuff they need. His policies are better for more women because they’re more redistributive.

The nurses of the 90 percent female union have found themselves more inspired by Sanders.

“When we heard Bernie Sanders talking about everything we’ve been talking about it was a no brainer,” says Karen Higgins one of three co-presidents of the National Nurses Union and a nurse for the last 40 years. She’s spent the last 37 working in intensive care and at 62 still works full-time at Boston Medical Center. When I spoke with her, she was home preparing to go campaign for Sanders in New Hampshire. The NNU has endorsed him, citing his longtime alignment on their trademark issues: single-payer healthcare, taxing Wall Street, less college debt for their kids, and opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes concessions to pharmaceutical companies. Contrary to much commentary on the left, the nurses don’t regard a commitment to single payer as foolishly ideological: Higgins describes receiving intensive care patients whose first question is what the treatment will cost and how they can pay. She differentiates between an insurance system (Obamacare) and universal healthcare, which would eliminate the need for individuals to wrangle with private companies. It’s been a long time since a serious candidate carried a commitment to this system as a banner issue. The nurses of the 90 percent female union, as a result, have found themselves more inspired by Sanders.

When I ask Higgins about gender, she does seem a tad regretful. “There’s a piece of me as a woman that would definitely have loved to see a woman in that position so there’s a little bit of a heartbreak that she did not come out as strong” on the nurses’ issues. “It would be nice if she had taken a stance.” What does she think of the Twitter phenomenon of Bernie Bros? “I don’t think think I’ve seen that one. I’m not good about Twitter.”

It's possible to fight sexism at work and abuse the help. One could argue Hillary has done this on a national scale.

The argument that a Clinton presidency would increase respect for women, while a Sanders presidency would do nothing to create greater gender equity is belied by the experience of nurses and the people they serve. Hillary might face sexism at work, and so might white-collar women, but so do the nurses—they do care work largely assigned to women that has enjoyed little support from the government in terms of funding, wages, and reasonable structures of care. The problems that afflict the majority of women can only be resolved in the realm of organizing, policy-making, and other large-scale efforts. The proper question for a presidential election is who will forward these big programs. It is absolutely possible to fight sexism at work, come home, and abuse the help. One could argue that Hillary has done this on a national scale. “I hate to say this to women,” says Higgins, “but that has to be the real priority, whether it’s a man or a woman—what it’ll take to get people back on their feet in this country and take care of them.”

I'm tired of this Bernie Bros "Twitter phenomenon" and internet comments issue re Sanders supporters. Especially since I was banned from Political Animal comments for posting (apparently effective) defenses of Bernie Sanders. Really. That's it. After one comment which contained nothing offensive, just "reality-based" arguments, the openly pro-Hillary "moderator" trolled me, with an accusation that had nothing to do with my comment. "Are you being paid?" Really - when no one posting regularly pro-Clinton ever got asked that question. I reacted negatively, but not profanely. I recognized her as pro-Clinton, and could care less, but when she outed herself as also being the "moderator," I told her she was abusing her position and could shove it. Again, not with any actual profanity - just anger. Justifiable, since a "moderator" is the last person who should be baiting or making false accusations against commenters. Next up, I'm banned. I'd seen in that same comments section a lot of abusive garbage and frantic posting - which wasn't my MO - from Clinton supporters - along with some equally stupid stuff from some pro-Sanders people. I expect this nonsense on the internet. The internet is useful, but also an open sewer - which every adult should recognize by now.

I don't know of anything the Sanders campaign actually did that qualifies for this "Bernie Bros" dismissive - just internet comments. I could find anything on the internet to prove any group is full of a-holes. At the same time, a pro-Hillary PAC, deeply embedded in her campaign network actually did push some serious red-baiting early on. I never saw an apology or pushback on this, not even from Jennifer Granholm who was asked about it on MSNBC because she's a director of same PAC. The little man behind this was the same guy who slimed Anita Hill. Then he became an errand boy for the Clintons, using the same low tactics.

Also, the most notorious and and high-profile explicit dismissal of women from either campaign - certainly that I'm aware of - was from two veteran "feminists" supporting Hillary who are both major celebrities (one best known for being willing to crucify Iraqi children on the alter of "sanctions against Saddam," the other an iconic feminist from the '70s whose age is apparently getting to her in characterizing the motives of much younger women who supported Sanders as, essentially, wanting to get laid. On national television, not even "the internet.") I may be mistaken, but nothing like that came from major Sanders spokespersons dismissing women who supported Hillary in the primaries.

There was also a lot of race-baiting against Sanders from high-profile pro-Clinton columnists like Charles Blow, who erased people like Ben Jealous, Harry Belafonte, Michelle Alexander and other "woke" activists from the black community. Give this "I saw it on Twitter or the Internet" a rest. It cut both ways. The epithet "Bernie Bros" used to paint over a large segment of Sanders support itself is an example. Clueless, ugly and intentionally exaggerated for effect.

(0)(0)

Dennis Ditulliosays:

February 22, 2016 at 1:58 pm

we've had 8 years of Obama...... what had it done for black folks.... ask Flint.... so this "oped" is smoke.

(5)(3)

Donna Davissays:

February 20, 2016 at 5:42 am

Thank you for your thoughtful article. I must admit that this statement regarding single payer health care: "Higgins describes receiving intensive care patients whose first question is what the treatment will cost and how they can pay." hit a raw nerve for me.

Some years ago a van ran over a bicyclist in front of my home. I ran to the site and saw that the front of the van was smashed in, and the windshield shattered. The cyclist lying in the road was a friend of mine. I sat with her until the EMTs arrived. The first thing she said was: " I hope my daughters will be OK. Can you please call my husband?" The second thing she said - lying in a spreading pool of her own blood - was: "I can't afford this! How will we pay for this?!"

So after her family, this possibly dying woman's chief concern was her inability to pay for the medical attention she needed! I was so incensed at her need to consider the cost under those circumstances that it took several weeks for my anger to subside. (She was rushed to a hospital that specializes in trauma and received the care she needed, and is doing well today, but has a few lingering problems.)

There are many reasons to vote for Bernie, but being a proponent of a single payer health care plan is enough for me.

(18)(0)

F Michael Montgomerysays:

February 20, 2016 at 3:12 am

I am a 65 y/o white male who would have voted for Hillary in 2008 had Obama not shown up and brought a sense of hope for main street America. And then had to live with my disappointments especially with his connections with Wall Street.

I cannot see myself voting for Hillary except as an alternative to Republicans and their corporate agenda. This is due to 1) her connection with Walmart and their unabashed antagonism toward unions and paying living wages and benefits for the majority of their employees; 2) her connection with Monsanto as an example of corporate vs. people support; 3) and her connection to Wall Street (reflecting her refusal to advocate for breaking up banks, for paying their fair share of taxes, her refusal to not have a Wall Street member in her cabinet) and 4) a long list beyond this which convinces me that she does not have the best interests of the majority of Americans at heart.

I have considered myself to be a feminist since the late 70's when I came to see it as a human rights issue that needed to be supported every bit as much by men as by women.

But to have such gross economic inequality especially in the wealthiest country in the world in just wrong on so many levels, morally as well as practically.

As a social worker and now as a psychotherapist, it breaks my heart to see so many people work so hard and still barely make a living. Even Obama has said that it is so wrong for someone to work full time and yet still live in poverty in this country.

I understand Obama's looking to work with Republicans and the need for compromise and yet it was the vision that he initially spoke of that rang true to me and that I now hear in an even fuller way with Bernie Sanders: 1) Universal health care for all. Fully funded education through college for all. 2) Corporations and the 1% paying their fair share of taxes. 3) Unions upheld (I have never been a union member). 4) Full paying jobs created by government funding to rebuild our infrastructure. 5) Renewable energy supported and subsidized rather than the fossil fuel industry. 6) Getting the corrupting influence of money our of our politics and having people reclaim our democracy. To name only a few top issues.

Hillary either does not know the pain or has forgotten the pain of those struggling daily just to survive.

I highly recommend seeing Michael Moore's film, "Where to Invade Next (2016)" which I found inspiring and a pull for us to realize our American values put into play as we did in so many ways after WWII. Sanders advocates for this NOW not some distant time in the future. America can do this as we have before and as other countries are doing it now.

(20)(2)

Trey Casimirsays:

February 19, 2016 at 1:50 pm

" The proper question for a presidential election is who will forward these big programs." This is the crux of the question for a progressive voter. I love both Bernie and Hilary, and will happily vote for either next fall. However, "forward" is a very imprecise verb, and people of good will can argue reasonably about what it means, and who can do it best. Having been a politician, I know first-hand how messy, inefficient and unsatisfying the process is, even when it leads to advances. For every moment of triumph, there are days and days of tedium, frustration and despair. I have no doubt that either Bernie or Hilary could handle this part of being President, but I have lots of doubts about voters' (and commentators') ability to understand and appreciate what is involved in governing. Without question, Bernie has the more far-reaching vision of a progressive, peaceful and sustainable America. But does a "vision" always "forward" progress? Uh, no, plainly it doesn't. The next President's audience will be ALL of America, and he or she will have to work with ALL of their representatives. I think Hilary will be more skillful and effective at working with those people, Wal Mart or not, so she gets my vote in the primary. Too, the things some hold against her ("If she hadn't married Bill, she'd be a WASP-y country club Republican") I mark in her favor. She DID marry Bill, and she DID change her point of view to something more reasonable and humane. What, progressives are anti-aspirational and don't believe in the possibility of redemption?

(8)(12)

Katch Keatingsays:

February 18, 2016 at 7:01 am

I'm a 60 year old white woman raised in the middle-class white suburbs of NYC. But even as a young woman fighting for equality in a male dominated work place, I clearly understood that the feminist movement was speaking to well-educated middle to upper class white women like me and had not a clue to the struggles that most women endured day in-day out:

in their jobs -- which economics dictate they had to have to feed and clothe their family, not for a sense of fulfillment or "extras",

in health care -- which they all too frequently can't afford and if they can, can't afford to take the time off to get it,

in courts -- where the typically can't afford to go and when they can are mistreated whether dealing with abusive partners, trying to gain equity in the workplace, held to a very different standard of parenting, etc.

in education -- where they can't afford to live in the areas where the public schools are good,

by the government who views subsidizing companies along with investment in criminal prosecution and prisons more worthwhile than economic investment in its citizens, and

by middle to upper class white woman who look at the poverty and needs of the economically disenfranchised not as something done to them but as a result of their laziness and lack of character (and if only they would keep their legs together).

Year after year I vote for the Democratic nominee because I have no choice, I'm captive to the insanity of the Republican party.

Hillary's sense of entitlement and disconnect from the real struggles of most of the people, including women is mind-blowing.

The fact that she thinks she is owed my vote is yet another upper-class white woman's definition of feminism -- rather disconnected from the feminism I have fought for all my life.

To top it all off, right wing conspiracy or not, I still clearly recall her trying to destroy the women that Bill slept with as they made themselves known. Where was her solidarity then? I guess she earned her special place in hell.

I have followed Bernie's career for decades -- there is absolutely no comparison between them. He gets my money, my effort and my vote.

(104)(5)

Nation Editor

Sarahleonard says:

February 18, 2016 at 10:33 am

Thanks! I think this is the sort of personal story that's really important to share with others. I've had a similar experience in 2016! There have always been other feminist movements, too, with different constituencies, but they don't get a lot of attention during an election season like this one.

(17)(3)

Sher Thomsonsays:

February 18, 2016 at 3:10 am

It's absolutely shocking to me how many women support Hillary because they identify with 'her struggles'. Ignoring all her other behavior, beliefs and ('venomous') treatment of poor women. Her six-year stint on the board of Walmart, and now its funding of her candacy: it's shameful. Also, see: Jeffrey Sach's Hillary Clinton is the Candidate of the War Machine on Feb. 5, 2016, Huffpost.

(60)(5)

John Andrechaksays:

February 18, 2016 at 5:43 pm

Sheryl, good post; obviously the HRC supporters must forget her stint with Walmart, as they forget her war vote; I would love to see a reply to your words from the one "thumbs down" but he or she won't

(22)(3)

Mark Pollocksays:

February 18, 2016 at 3:23 am

Excellent. Her "struggles". Right. If she had not married him, she would be a country club, pro-choice Republican partner in some WASPy law firm in Chicago. Does anyone in the world think that she would have been a senator, Secretary of State and (terrible) candidate for president as Hillary Rodham or Hillary Rodham anything else? Give me a break.

(43)(8)

Merle Molofskysays:

February 17, 2016 at 11:05 pm

I found I had to read almost the entire article before I found ideas I agreed with, offered by Karen Higgins of the National Nurses Union. She focused on policies first. I am a 73-year-old woman, I was a 23-year-old mother of three very young children when my then-husband abandoned the family and disappeared, and I endured poverty and sexism and discrimination. The feminist consciousness-raising movement changed my life. I learned to fight for dignity and respect. It took me 11 years to get my B.A., and I went to graduate school for a 60-credit Master's degree. I completed post-graduate education, and am a New York State licensed psychoanalyst. I will not vote for a candudate based on gender, race, ethnicity. I will vote for a candidate based on the candidate's ideas, policies, and character. In the Democratic primary, I will vote for Bernie Sanders. I hope he wins. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for her for president.

(68)(3)

Nation Editor

Sarahleonard says:

February 18, 2016 at 10:36 am

Thank you so much for sharing this story and for fighting the good fight. So much respect for this.

(15)(1)

Mark Pollocksays:

February 18, 2016 at 12:01 am

A wonderful, moving comment! Congratulations on ALL that you have accomplished in your life. May you have MANY more years of success!

(19)(1)

Cira G Miliansays:

February 17, 2016 at 10:32 pm

I don't believe gender should be a factor in determining the candidate of your choice. There are too many issues of national importance to be considered.

(49)(1)

Cira G Miliansays:

February 17, 2016 at 10:16 pm

I'm a woman who values my vote. Thus, I would never consider gender to be a factor don't believe gender should take part in

(41)(1)

Sybil Schweitzersays:

February 17, 2016 at 9:43 pm

To be brief: I, too, want a woman POTUS. Will be supporting Bernie now, and Elizabeth Warren for POTUS after her term in the Senate. I would also welcome Elizabeth Warren as an excellent choice to replace Scalia.
An octogenarian feminist.

(55)(1)

Anne Jureksays:

February 17, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Well thought out analysis. I really liked this: "Contrary to much commentary on the left, the nurses don’t regard a commitment to single payer as foolishly ideological.". (I realize that wasn't your main argument, but I liked it. )

(42)(1)

Nation Editor

Sarahleonard says:

February 18, 2016 at 10:37 am

Thank you! I think their stance on single payer is really telling.

(11)(1)

Richard D Erlichsays:

February 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm

I once told the story of how I'd received a message during the US "Troubles" of 1970, supposedly from the Minutemen, "Tell Erlich the crosshairs are on the back of his neck." I called the local police and reported it for their statistics and then ignored the threat. A woman listener responded with what nowadays can be summed up as reminding me of my White and male privilege. I noted that Minutemen of the more openly neoNazi persuasion wouldn't consider me White, but allowed the point, adding, though, that the goal should be for as many people as possible to be in positions where they could mostly ignore threats and insults from the likes of the Minutemen and American neoNazis. It's nice if horrible people don't hate you; a more crucial goal is to get to where you don't have to care much if horrible people do.

So, right on, Sister Sarah (Leonard)! The process is dynamic, but from my privileged point of view the primary goal for feminists should be improving the economic status and political clout of women generally, while fighting rear-guard actions as necessary against macro-aggressions against women *as women* by politicians who want to put all sorts of people back in our places, starting with women, and who want to keep the 99% away from dealing with the basic questions of Who pays, Who profits, and Who gets what?

(19)(1)

Richard D Erlichsays:

February 17, 2016 at 5:58 pm

Clarification (necessary for the argument): That was MIDDLE CLASS White Male privilege that I had in 1970; the main immediate prize to keep Leftish eyes on is secure middle-class status for more people, emphatically including young women, or, and better, a diverse working-class with bourgeois standards of living and job security (as, when I was young, with members of elite [and sometimes racist and sexist] unions) and with political influence.

(10)(0)

Joyce Westerbursays:

February 17, 2016 at 5:01 pm

As a retired female mechanical engineer, I experienced engineering professors who believed girls had no business in engineering school, in the work force, larger raises given out to male co-workers who didn't have a degree because they "had families to support", but I had a husband to support me, sexual harassment as a student intern (I was amazed at the limitless rage I felt against Clarence Thomas nearly a decade later). I have been a Planned Parenthood clinic defender when the Operation Rescue lunatics descended on Albuquerque, and later drove hours to help work against the petition measure for 20-week abortion ban that the fundies managed to get on the ballot.
I was a founding member of the Hillary fan club, t-shirt included, in my town. That was before NAFTA, Bill Clinton's collusion with the Repuklicans on destroying the social safety net in the name of "reform", and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, setting up the 2008 disaster.
I do not now support Hillary, for a number of reasons.
As an engineer, my career was evidence-based. My view of Hillary is based on her position as a Third-Way "Democrat, i.e. Republican-Lite, and other evidence. She is not a true progressive. When she says she "gets things done", that is only a plus if the things she gets done are not destructive. I do not trust her not to go along with the Repuklicans in a compromise that begins the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, much the way Bill went along with the Repukes "reforming" welfare. I do not believe she will do anything significant about climate change: as Secretary of State, she pressured a number of countries who had / were about to ban fracking, not to do so, on behalf of the US oil and gas industry. She could still be indicted for the email server hot mess, leaving the Democratic party in quite a pickle. As a beneficiary of wealthy donors, I doubt she will put any effort into changing our corrupt system of financing elections, and as a close pal of Wall Street, any (badly needed) reforms will be window-dressing, not the needed reinstatement of Glass Steagall.
In Bernie we of the middle class finally have a champion, who is relentlessly pointing out how badly we're getting screwed. Millenials I've talked with, including young women, realize how their future has been stolen by Hillary's monied owners.
If she is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her, which may be all she cares about anyway. I cannot muster enthusiasm for her candidacy (Elizabeth Warren would be another matter). I will not volunteer for Hillary, or send contributions (as retiree, on Social Security and Medicare, which she is likely to cut, I can't afford to donate). Her wealthy donors to her SuperPAC can do that.
Compromise, hell! The middle class and poor have nothing left to give.

(101)(3)

Nation Editor

Sarahleonard says:

February 18, 2016 at 10:41 am

Thank you for such a thoughtful response! That's a powerful story, and a better description than I could've offered of turning the rage resulting from sexual harassment and discrimination into a broad-based politics. Cheers!

(9)(0)

Sher Thomsonsays:

February 18, 2016 at 3:17 am

Thanks for saving me the time it would take to put down almost exactly what you said!

I'm also a Mechanical Engineer, and share nearly the same experience - but hold the same convictions. Thank you.

(26)(0)

Charles K Blacksays:

February 17, 2016 at 4:39 pm

It is wonderful to come to this forum. It seems that most devolve into mudslinging by the fifth post.
The thoughtful and inspired blogs I have read with respect to HRC have been written by professional women (as one would expect) who have a special regard for other professional women.
My career has been in the skilled trades, primarily in construction as a union craftsman. The women with whom I have worked were paid exactly the same as the men and enjoyed the same benefits. The construction world is not known for its societal niceties, but if there were any instances of verbal abuse, the women gave as good as they got. The union-based skilled trades are about as merit based as it gets in this country.
Bernie has always been a major supporter of unions because they give those willing to work an opportunity unavailable otherwise. We have a saying: "United we bargain; divided we beg". I would love to hear more "feminists" tout the advantages of union labor. The women with whom I have worked over the years have been some of the best welders and trouble shooters in the industry. I know they can do it but many do not pick that career path because they are told that it is not feminine or that they can do better. I disagree. I look forward to a time when women get more involved in the skilled crafts.

(44)(0)

John Andrechaksays:

February 18, 2016 at 5:46 pm

asa a member of the IBEW and LIUNA I find the same,my wife, in nursing for 40 years, continiouly fced gender discrimination, currently in the form of less educated PAs, a male role, making more money then her, with a MSN/FNP with a psych cert to boot

(12)(0)

Joyce Westerbursays:

February 19, 2016 at 1:19 pm

I'm about as pro-union as it's possible to be without having been a member directly. My father was a world-class mechanic and member of the UAW; I never forget that my childhood was much the better because of the union. My brother and I learned union songs at the knee of our Irish immigrant grandfather, who took part in the struggle to unionize the auto industry. Bro is a retired union electrician, enjoying a well-deserved retirement thanks to the union.
When unions were strong, the middle class was strong. It is the objective of the 1% (Koch bros. and Sheldon Adelson, the Amway owners, Coors, etc.) to crush labor, to have a meek workforce with no option other than to work for Third World / Walmart level wages with no benefits, in dangerous toxic conditions.

(11)(0)

Anna Theofilopoulousays:

February 17, 2016 at 4:14 pm

Is anybody supporting Sanders paying attention that he has never given any answer to how he will achieve his goals, other than talk about the people rising up for the revolution when he is elected president? What about our checks and balances system, requiring the chief executive to work with the congress in order to govern the republic? Has anybody noticed that this country has become down right dysfunctional since GOP took over both branches of congress? or the ensuing battle for Scalia's replacement which means that any democratic president will have to spend the first six months in office trying to have confirmed a supreme court justice, with republicans blocking the nomination and not allowing time for anything else? As for the article's closing argument that Hillary's election will help poor women, I offer instead Susan Faludi's closing argument on a NY Times piece on the subject of the current feminist generation gap: "In the long run, the feminist victory that Hillary Clinton needs to emphasize is not breaking an individualistic glass ceiling so we can finally send a woman to the Oval Office. It’s defending the fragile rights of millions of women, the rights for which feminism fought so hard. That’s what hangs in the balance, and what makes the current shouting match so unfortunate. That the Democratic agenda, so singularly important to women, could be scuttled by a slugfest between generations of like-minded women is a tragedy we can’t afford." Let us all grow up and admit that Hillary is the best candidate we have right now, who can be elected, if nominated and can govern, if elected.

(20)(60)

Nation Editor

Sarahleonard says:

February 18, 2016 at 10:45 am

Hi Anna! I totally understand this perspective. And I agree a great deal with Susan Faludi—I would love for Hillary to emphasize the priorities of working class and poor women. My fear is that she won't do so, and hasn't in the past, that she's beholden to her donors. Bernie certainly would not get his whole agenda passed, but he might expand the range of the possible, whereas I feel Hillary shrinks that range. But you're right! Congress is a horrible mess, and anyone elected is going to have to battle to get the smallest thing done.

(19)(3)

Eric Skalwoldsays:

February 17, 2016 at 10:25 pm

Anna, Bernie is articulating a message America is finally ready to hear. He is exciting even a significant number of conservatives with his positive message. Hillary's plans, especially for health care reform, are no more detailed than Bernie's. Bernie's message is, for Americans who get to hear it, a message of possibility and hope. If nominated his coat tails will be long and drag a lot of Progressive candidates into office along with him. Americans don't want negative Republican politics and they don't want the politics of "reasonable" goals any more than did the Negros who joined Martin Luther King Jr marching for what was necessary as opposed to reasonable. Martin wasn't the first with the message, but he was there when it was time for the message. The same is true for Bernie and his message. If Bernie is nominated and elected what is necessary may very well become possible in short order. Can anyone seriously imagine Hillary having coat tails that drag anyone into office along with her?

(29)(4)

Charlie Pricesays:

February 17, 2016 at 6:55 pm

You elect a President to do three things: (1) pull Congress in the preferred direction; (2) run the Executive/Regulatory branch; and (3) run foreign policy. Re (1) Hillary will start center-right and get pulled right from there. Also, we've elected two third-way Democrats and both lost 50+ seats at mid-terms b/c the base is deflated from electing a Democrat who governs like a moderate Republican. Bernie will pull Congress left and excite the base. All Republicans and most Independents abhor Hillary, guaranteeing further losses in Congress.
Re (2) running the Executive Branch is where the real power lies, and you can either have someone who is owned by Goldman Sachs, PhRMA and Monsanto, or someone who has spent 50 years fighting for the people. Hillary will appoint the Bob Rubins of the world to run the Fed and Treasury, and when they crash the economy again, they'll be right there to bail themselves out. Hillary will continue prosecuting the people with a failed War on Drugs, whereas Bernie can turn the awesome police power of the federal government on the real criminals: Wall Street; other white-collar criminals; and corrupt politicians. Do you want a War on Drugs, or a War on Corruption? Re (3) Hillary will continue spending $1.5T per year on destroying other countries and making the US a police state. Do you care at all for the people of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Honduras, or Haiti? Hillary played a role in turning all of those countries into failed states; she weaponize the State Department. She will continue perpetual war for another four years, likely igniting war with Russia as she pushed with her "no-fly zone" in Syria. Bernie will, instead, use those funds to rebuild our country while allowing the world to heal from the wounds inflicting on them by your chosen candidate. Bernie does not need Congress to accomplish any of those things, yet they would represent a sea change for our corrupt government. Also, and perhaps most importantly of all, Bernie would not need Congress to spike the evil incarnate that is the TPP (and its devil sibling the TTIP). A pro-trade lobbying group estimated that the TPP will cost the US 800,000 jobs! Hillary is guaranteed to support her "gold standard" trade deals if elected, which is why she says she opposes them "as written." That translates to "I'll make a cosmetic change or two for political cover and then ram them through for my billionaire owners."

(56)(5)

Sher Thomsonsays:

February 18, 2016 at 3:33 am

Exactly right on all counts. This is the first time, in a comment; I've read two or three well-researched articles) on Hillary Clinton's wars on the five countries you cited. Barack Obama described Hillary as an 'exemplary Secretary of State', which puts my teeth on edge. Her actions were for the most part extremely destructive, and undemocratic (supporting the military coup in Honduras against democratically-elected president Mel Zelaya). Each of her interventions resulted in wakes of mass destruction. And yet she rides this far on 'feminism', 'Children's Defense Fund' (when is Mafia Wright Edelman going to speak out?), 'struggles to get where she is', etc.

(18)(0)

Sher Thomsonsays:

February 18, 2016 at 3:36 am

(Correction to my cell phones unhelpful correction: I, in no way meant to write Mafia when I meant MARIAN Wright Eden man. )

(5)(0)

Cynthia Conrysays:

February 17, 2016 at 4:12 pm

I am a women going on 60 years now. I went through the women's lib era. At the time, I was eager at the possibilities. In retrospect, I feel the movement helped corporations more. Wages were falling, women going back to work helped the family financially. This helped wages to stay low. Children grew up without the strong family foundations needed to get into adulthood. Families broke up more than ever in history. I don't want anyone to like me because I'm a woman. I like who I am as an HONEST hard working sole, willing and to do or help anyone who is in need. In short, I'm honest to a fault. I don't like the track record/ history of the Clintons. I don't approve of how she acquired her wealth, and I mistrust that she will follow through on anything she speaks of in her campaign. Mostly so because she has swung so far left just for this election. Also the fact that she has been given sooooooo much money from wall street, Monsanto, Wal-Mart, etc that she has to give FAVORS back at the cost of the American people. Like Obama, she will continue to appoint Monsanto & Corp influences in places like big pharma, EPA, FDA, USDA,AMA.......

Each president that does these things, takes freedoms, rights and such away from the low and middle class.
Like Sanders says "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

(51)(0)

Nation Editor

Sarahleonard says:

February 18, 2016 at 10:45 am

I feel you about the donations!

(1)(1)

Leila Hoversays:

February 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm

I love the product Bernie is selling. However, as a pragmatist, it can't be produced at a purchasable price. I call it pie in the sky and it can't fly. For that reason, if Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for her. Accusations may (and do) fly regarding her affiliations, but she, too, is a pragmatist and, as she has said, she won't make promises she can't deliver. Fair enough. If she isn't nominated? Well, there's always Bernie.

(10)(43)

James Wagnersays:

February 17, 2016 at 4:15 pm

"No You Can't," aka Clinton pragmatism, dooms us to the current failed system when the world is faced with a need for systemic change to meet the converging crises of the 21st century. The election of Sanders to the presidency is just the first step of the necessary political revolution to prevent catastrophic climate change, address the energy crisis, change the corrupt and unfair financial system while raising up the poor of the world to a more equitable standard of living. I don't even know if it is possible to do all these things that must be done, but I do know that Clinton's "pragmatism" will not suffice and demonstrates an ignorance or unconscionable disregard of the problems we face. "More of the Same," "No You Can't" is a doomed policy protecting the status quo that accelerates us towards disastrous outcomes.

(54)(3)

Kevin Conwaysays:

February 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

Stop with the genital election strategy. It's not working. Elizabeth Warren will make a fine president.

(39)(7)

John Andrechaksays:

February 18, 2016 at 6:41 pm

Warren would making a fine president? She lacks the courage to endorse Sanders

(2)(1)

Jessica Woodhousesays:

February 17, 2016 at 2:45 pm

I think you're spot on here. I have wished for quite a while that someone would run a poll of women's support for Bernie versus Hillary breaking it down by income level. I think it might be quite illuminating.

I am a strong feminist. But I'm also a financially struggling single mom. And when I look at Hillary I sees a woman so rich and so privileged that she is literally living in a different country from me.

Is Bernie a "one issue candidate?" Sure he is. But that one issue happens to be making the economy work for my kids instead of only rich people's kids.

Whereas whenever Hillary is really pushed to articulate HER big issue -- why people should vote for her -- she falls back on this idea that putting a woman in the oval office will somehow release a mystical wave of female awesomeness that would make all women's lives magically better.

This might help! Although when you segment by gender AND income, the margin of error gets rather high. http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/filters/PD1:1

(0)(1)

George Hoffmansays:

February 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm

Susan, of course, I agree with the basic premise of your article about sexism against women online and in the Democratic Party. And also the struggles feminists have had to wage to be treated as equals in the marketplace and in politics which younger feminists seem to forget. But, Susan, you are an elite on the left and suffer from what French intellectuals term "professional deformity." You view the world through a parochial prism, as we all do and that also includes me, given all your formative life experiences as a professional woman. I harbor no real animus against the Clintons. As a Vietnam veteran, I voted for Bill as president when the GOP smeared him as a draft dodger during the campaign. Actually, I find service in the military an ironic rhetorical red herring that both parties love to fling at each other in elections. Which is amusing is the vast majority of citizens today have "no skin in the game" now with an all volunteer armed forces. I have grave doubts about Hillary: she is such a war hawk. Bernie's really no better: he supports President Obama's various drone wars in...well, go ahead and pick your own country or countries in the Greater Middle East...there are so many choices. He's violated the national sovereignty of more nations than Richard Nixon did during his presidency. Yes, Bernie did vote against the resolution, and he loves reminding all the voters on this campaign trail over again and again ad nauseam. That remains Hillary's Achilles heel. She has admitted she made a mistake. Who am I to judge her since I enlisted and volunteered to serve as a medical corpsman in Vietnam? It's the biggest mistake I made in my life. I was still an insignificant gog in the vast and well oiled machinery of war. And I have nobody to blame except myself. But read her interview with Jefferey Goldberg published in The Atlantic, I think, several months ago. Now even if you discount The Atlantic is a bastion for hawks in the MSM such as PEter Beinart and David Frum, she still comes across as quite hawkish even in that magazine, to say the least. And I must admit I voted for John Kerry as president even though while in the Senate he voted for the resolution. But he should have know better being a fellow Vietnam veteran and a rock star of the anti-war movement among veterans. So my objection to Hillary isn't the usual case of a double standard as a man when it comes to men and women in public service. But I doubt Bernie will make it through the primaries and be our nominee. So do I vote for Hillary? After all, I voted for Kerry. Probably, I will given all those clowns packed in a car under the big top at the carnival in the GOP primaries. And with the untimely death of Justice Anotnin Scalia, Hillary as president would probably nominate a liberal for the vacancy and tip the scale for a majority in favor of liberal rulings. But the GOP are going to delay, delay, delay! Obama's pick as Trump shouted at the last debate in South Carolins. And I think they will pull it off. But to be honest, just as with John Kerry, my heart's not in it voting for Hillary. Of course, I could sit out the election which I am considering. But that's like giving a vote to the GOP. The solution to our dilemma would be a third party of progressives. But that's just more pie in the sky given our two party duopoly. There's no meaningful alternatives right now in the Demoocratic Party. So if I do vote for Hilary, I will mae the same gesture when I voted for Kerry, namely, hold my nose in the polling booth when I vote. But that's how I view the Democratic Party from my "professional deformity" given my life experiences. Hillary wants to seduce the working class voters during thus election and then she will abandon them after she wins and continue the same old charade of business as usual. Which ironically, sounds like the same old game of sexism you criticized in your article.

(26)(12)

James Duselsays:

February 17, 2016 at 2:40 pm

As a male, I feel slightly awkward about commenting on this piece. But I want to register my appreciation of the subtlety of the author's argument as well as its truth. As someone whom I do not particularly respect once said, women's rights are human rights. Do not doubt that, despite the statement's author, myriads of my fellow males feel the truth of that statement and have no wish to either publicly or privately diminish its validity or power. But I would hope in return that our good intentions and our common humanity would make the same claim upon the conscience of women as their claim
makes upon us

(27)(1)

Lamont Hettichsays:

February 17, 2016 at 2:26 pm

I agree with Mark Pollock. Trustworthiness as well as judgment are essential. Apologizing for a war vote that cost us 5000 lives and $3 trillion just doesn't cut it with me. Having an ambassador in Libya during a civil war reveals she ignored the lessons of Lebanon in the early 80's . Are people lives not important? Is it more important to have an American presence during a foreign country's civil war? Having classified information on an unguarded private server would put other people in jail immediately. I find it hard to believe that people believe her story that these documents were sent without classification markings so she didn't have to report any violation of the law. As S of S she had to know what information is classified and what to do if a breach occurred. I consider that really poor judgment.
I also want to see a woman in the WH, just not this woman. Warren would be a great pick. Go Bernie/Elizabeth!!!!

(42)(4)

John Andrechaksays:

February 18, 2016 at 11:36 am

Lamont, 5000 lives? The 500,000 don't matter because their skin was brown?

(5)(1)

Joel Hermansays:

February 17, 2016 at 1:48 pm

Bernie is no socialist as an outside the establishment Legislator he like the jaw dropping effect of the title. As Chomsky noted Bernie is a die hard new dealer .
But I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's description of Bernie
"First, to discard crude thinking; second, to realize that the orthodox or so-called scientific or purely economic or materialistic socialism of the type preached by Marx is an exploded theory; and, third, that many of the men who call themselves Socialists to-day are in reality merely radical social reformers, with whom on many points good citizens can and ought to work in hearty general agreement, and whom in many practical matters of government good citizens well afford to follow."

(33)(2)

John Andrechaksays:

February 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm

the mention of Sandberg's failure to stand with the hotel workers does not speak volumes in regard to the white, white collar feminist elite; it does not speak volumes because it said it all; when Clinton spoke to the women's silicon valley group, how many work, or own, firms that are actively anti-labor, that belong to organizations that are intrinsic foes to unions? How many? ALL! That might be one's vision of an equal and just society; I reject it root and branch

(41)(3)

Subhash Reddysays:

February 17, 2016 at 1:29 pm

Thanks, Sarah, for being intellectually honest albeit somewhat confusing to some of us who might construe wrongly that you are for Hillary! But the way you ended your article with Karen Higgins's quote "... what it’ll take to get people back on their feet in this country and take care of them ... has to be the real priority," says it all and beyond any doubt. Thanks for voting for what is best for the nation rather than for some ill-defined narrow interests.

(27)(4)

Mark Pollocksays:

February 17, 2016 at 1:11 pm

How can any discussion of the Democratic presidential primary contest 2016 not include the issue of integrity? The most lopsided determining factor for voters of any category has been "trustworthiness". Voters for whom "honesty" was the most important consideration voted 92-6 for Senator Sanders in New Hampshire. Such an overwhelming result says mountains. She has only herself and her own lies and sleaze to blame. No, it is not a manufactured allegation, conservative calumny or right wing conspiracy. It is a result solely of her dishonesty -- many years and many lies.

(60)(6)

600131684says:

February 17, 2016 at 1:06 pm

The women who think everything's going fine in America and we just need a little tweaking here and there and another historic Clintonite gesture (a woman in the White House will help women as much as Maya Angelou at Bill's inauguration helped the disproportionate sentencing of minorities) support Hillary. It's "making history" without addressing any of America's structural problems.
Those who feel that we need more than the politics of empty gestures, and could benefit from real structural change in this country (on race, policing, "elective" wars, defunding education and public housing, privatized jails, mass incarceration, mandatory sentencing, equal pay for women) know who has been calling attention to these problems for years, without ever faltering: Bernie.
HRC's political leanings can be traced to those who send her money, as can Senator Sanders'. They are very different groups: one moderate Republican, the other populist, regardless of what the New York Times says. They didn't want Obama, either.

(48)(3)

Terry Lowmansays:

February 17, 2016 at 1:00 pm

As for fixing sexist bigots, looking at Obama's fixing racist bigots should be warning enough. That said, I will gladly support Hillary if she gets the nomination. We can't let bigotry dictate our choice for President.

(17)(4)

Carolyn Herzsays:

February 17, 2016 at 12:41 pm

Any woman who votes for Hillary Clinton just to laugh in the faces of misogynistic men if she wins is not doing the country, or women, any favors. I agree that women don't necessarily help other women. In my workplace, I was the target of vicious backstabbing by overly ambitious women who sought to get ahead by trampling on other women. And I am not the only one. So, I am supporting the candidate whom I think is best for the country, and for women.

(66)(6)

Susy Oviedosays:

February 17, 2016 at 12:32 pm

Your theory leaves out the fact that, had Elizabeth Warren run instead of Bernie, all of Bernie's supporters would be behind her. It's not about sexism. We need someone who is not accepting money from the private prison industry, from the fossil fuel industry, from big Pharma, and--yes--from Wall Street. How hard is that to understand? Why with the mental acrobatics that everyone supporting Bernie must be some kind of Bernie Bro (I am a Latina, and have been called this repeatedly by Hillary supporters on Twitter because my Twitter handle is ambiguous). The Bernie Bro is a scapegoat. Before Bernie Bro, there was Obama Boys. I supported Hillary in '08 because I wanted a woman president and didn't pay any attention to politics. Now, I pay attention and I know this country needs Bernie. We need someone who will keep their promise and fight for the middle class--we don't need tactics, lawyer-speak, and we certainly don't need people who accept money regardless of where it comes from. Period.

(133)(5)

Nation Editor

Sarahleonard says:

February 18, 2016 at 10:49 am

Yes, the fact that so many Bernie supporters would support Warren does indicate that the problem isn't the gender of the candidates. Though people remain capable of irrelevant, sexist attacks. I agree with you, in the end, that the main problem is money.